Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30986016›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of managed care2019

Deprescribing in the context of multiple providers: understanding patient preferences.

Amy Linsky, Mark Meterko, Barbara G Bokhour, Kelly Stolzmann, Steven R Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of managed care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Current Landscape and Future Directions of Deprescribing and Polypharmacy Practices in Jordan.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Amy LinskySection of General Internal Medicine (152G), VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 S Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02130. Email: amy.linsky@va.gov.
Mark Meterko
Barbara G Bokhour
Kelly Stolzmann
Steven R Simon

Funding

Patient and provider perceptions of intentional medication discontinuationIK2HX001357 · VA · VA BOSTON HEALTH CARE SYSTEM · PI LINSKY, AMY · 2018 to 2019
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX001357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDeprescribing could reduce the risk of harm from inappropriate medications. We characterized patients' acceptance of deprescribing recommendations from pharmacists, primary care providers (PCPs), and specialists relative to the original prescriber's professional background. STUDY

designSecondary analysis of national Patient Perceptions of Discontinuation survey responses from Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care patients with 5 or more prescriptions.

methodsWe created 4 relative deprescribing authority (RDA) outcome groups from responses to 2 yes/no (Y/N) items: (1) "Imagine…a specialist…prescribed a medicine. Would you be comfortable if your PCP told you to stop...it?" and (2) "Imagine…your VA PCP prescribed a medicine. Would you be comfortable if a VA clinical pharmacist [Pharm] told you to stop…it?" Multinomial regression associated patient factors with RDA.

resultsRespondents (n = 803; adjusted response rate, 52%) were predominantly men (85%) and older than 65 years (60%). A total of 281 (38%) respondents said no to both questions (PCP-N/Pharm-N) and 146 (20%) said yes to both (PCP-Y/Pharm-Y). A total of 155 (21%) said no to a PCP stopping a specialist's medicine but yes to a pharmacist stopping a PCP's (PCP-N/Pharm-Y). A total of 153 (21%) said that a PCP could stop a specialist's medication but a pharmacist could not stop a PCP's (PCP-Y/Pharm-N). In adjusted models (reference, PCP-N/Pharm-N), those with greater medication concerns were more likely to respond PCP-Y/Pharm-Y (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.09-1.92). Those with more interest in shared decision making were more likely to respond PCP-N/Pharm-Y (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.92). Those with greater trust in their PCP were less likely to respond PCP-N/Pharm-Y (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.81) but more likely to respond PCP-Y/Pharm-N (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.31-3.56) or PCP-Y/Pharm-Y (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.13-2.98).

conclusionsUnderstanding patient preferences of RDA can facilitate effective design and implementation of deprescribing interventions.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelPatient PreferenceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharmacistsPrimary Health CareSocioeconomic FactorsSpecializationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30986016
PMCPMC6788284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.